Is there any evidence for evolution?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's called asking the question in circles, typical fallacious rhetoric, try again.

No. You said that the theory of evolution was neither a scientific theory or a hypothesis.
This is called putting forward a claim.
You then failed to substantiate this claim with evidence.
So I am asking you to substantiate your claim with evidence.
This is called having a conversation, no matter how much you wish to simply avoid one.

So... got any evidence to back up your claim that the theory of evolution is neither a scientific theory or a hypothesis?

 

[mark kennedy]

The ancient Greeks scientific ideas had to be comprehensively ditched before modern science could get underway. They made some contributions to mathematics, but they did not invent it, and mathematics has come a very long way since the days of Euclid.

Thales goes to Egypt and learned right triangle solutions, Pythagorean creates a solution that became the Pythagorean solution and their disciple creates an encyclical called Euclid's elements which today is still the second best selling nonfiction of all time, second only to the King James Bible. Algebra was and is Euclidean geometry with a Z depth and Calculus is just plane geometry with a Z depth in motion. What you don't have a clue about is that actual science is cumulative. So much for the big science apologist defending Darwinism by trying to bury the genuine article.

Descarte's contribution was to introduce Cartesian Geometry. Leibnitz and Newton developed two different approaches to calculus at about the same time. The approach of Leibnitz was closer than that of Newton to the approach used by present day mathematicians.

Leibnitz is famous only for his symbols and he corresponded with Newton begging for help in solving problems he never really ever figured out. On a bet Newton found a parabolic curve solution for predicting the course of a comet and Calculus was born. You need to learn your history and science and oh yea, you need to learn a little about logic.

Newton was undoubtedly a very religious man, but his theology was highly unorthodox, and there is nothing in his scientific theories which has anything to do with intelligent design.

Newton was obsessed with alchemy and eschatology based on the geometry of the Temple design. He denied the Trinity but was best friends with someone who was very important to American democracy, in fact, he was practically plagiarized in the declaration of independence. John Locke.

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” (Isaac Newton, The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy)
​

That's from Principia dude, I mean seriously...

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

No. You said that the theory of evolution was neither a scientific theory or a hypothesis.

It's not, a theory explains all the facts and all the facts from natural history in all of time with regards to the origin and development of life is impossible by inductive means. It's not a theory, it's an a priori assumption.

This is called putting forward a claim.

It's an obvious fact.

You then failed to substantiate this claim with evidence.

Evidence is irrelevant which is why you avoid it like the plague.

So I am asking you to substantiate your claim with evidence.

Still watching you chase this around the mulberry bush.

This is called having a conversation, no matter how much you wish to simply avoid one.

The inevitable ad hominem fallacy and...

So... got any evidence to back up your claim that the theory of evolution is neither a scientific theory or a hypothesis?

Asked, answered and now in a fatal downward spiral. An hypothesis needs a null hypothesis, it's the most essential element of the logic involved. Darwinism cannot fathom that, for instance, if things in common are an argument for common descent then the inverse logic is intuitively obvious. So it's not even an hypothesis, it's a myth.

So much for fish in a barrel.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[VirOptimus]

It's not, a theory explains all the facts and all the facts from natural history in all of time with regards to the origin and development of life is impossible by inductive means. It's not a theory, it's an a priori assumption.



It's an obvious fact.



Evidence is irrelevant which is why you avoid it like the plague.



Still watching you chase this around the mulberry bush.



The inevitable ad hominem fallacy and...



Asked, answered and now in a fatal downward spiral. An hypothesis needs a null hypothesis, it's the most essential element of the logic involved. Darwinism cannot fathom that, for instance, if things in common are an argument for common descent then the inverse logic is intuitively obvious. So it's not even an hypothesis, it's a myth.

So much for fish in a barrel.

Have a nice day
Mark

No, you made the assertion you back it up.

Stop running away.

Either put up, or admit that you are lying.

 

[Gene2memE]

The inevitable ad hominem fallacy and...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's an obvious fact.

This is the only one I'm going to focus on since it's the only thing that's closest to what I asked, which is sadly nothing.
You have, once again, presented no actual evidence that evolution is neither a scientific theory or a hypothesis, only another unsubstantiated claim that you expect everyone to accept with zero evidence.

If it's such 'an obvious fact', then you can easily present it.

 

[mark kennedy]

To the man which is flawed logic since it avoid the substance of the argument. I think you just committed it.

 

[mark kennedy]

This is the only one I'm going to focus on since it's the only thing that's closest to what I asked, which is sadly nothing.
You have, once again, presented no actual evidence that evolution is neither a scientific theory or a hypothesis, only another unsubstantiated claim that you expect everyone to accept with zero evidence.

If it's such 'an obvious fact', then you can easily present it.

Not once but twice I have, it's called asking the question in circles. No matter the answer you just keep asking the question and it's a newbie fallacy. After a while you will develop something a little less obvious but equally pedantic, it's normal.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, you made the assertion you back it up.

Stop running away.

Either put up, or admit that you are lying.

I did answer it, these ad hominem attacks are the end of the line for evolutionists. You started with them so I guess this kind of desperate pleading was inevitable. Sorry to see you crash and burn so easily, you probably don't know enough to even be embarrassed.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not once but twice I have, it's called asking the question in circles. No matter the answer you just keep asking the question and it's a newbie fallacy. After a while you will develop something a little less obvious but equally pedantic, it's normal.

Just present the evidence. You're "smarter than thou" attitude is becoming very childish.

 

[lesliedellow]

I know exactly what it is and it's an epistemology

Um no, it is a methodology.

 

[mark kennedy]

Just present the evidence. You're "smarter than thou" attitude is becoming very childish.

No, I did answer it. It's not a theory because it's an impossible burden of proof for an inductive proof and it's not an hypothesis because there is no null hypothesis. Asked and answered for the third and final time. Do you have any idea how many times this asking the question in circles fallacy has been tried on me? No, of course you don't, because you don't think the rules of logic apply to you. Darwinians never do.

 

[mark kennedy]

Um no, it is a methodology.

Science is a word that means knowledge, epistemology is the study of the theory of knowledge. Science in it's modern form is knowledge of natural phenomenon so it's essentially an epistemology with an inductive methodology. When you make corrections you should at least know what the words you are using actually mean.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, I did answer it. It's not a theory because it's an impossible burden of proof for an inductive proof and it's not an hypothesis because there is no null hypothesis. Asked and answered for the third and final time. Do you have any idea how many times this asking the question in circles fallacy has been tried on me? No, of course you don't, because you don't think the rules of logic apply to you. Darwinians never do.

You have given literally ZERO EVIDENCE for any one of your claims. You simply saying it, is not evidence. It is a claim and a claim only. How hard is this for you to understand?
And if anyone who doesn't think the rules of logic apply to them, it is you, sir. And it is incredibly ironic that you accuse others of putting forward ad hominem arguments and yet you have problem using them yourself.

 

[VirOptimus]

I did answer it, these ad hominem attacks are the end of the line for evolutionists. You started with them so I guess this kind of desperate pleading was inevitable. Sorry to see you crash and burn so easily, you probably don't know enough to even be embarrassed.

You are really funny.

So, will you write a peer review article? Or will you accept that you lost?

 

[VirOptimus]

Um no, it is a methodology.

Its quite interesting that not only do he get the science wrong. He dont understand the fundamentals either.

See how he wants to insert metaphysics into the science, how he misunderstands terms, philosophy, epistomology etc.

 

[lesliedellow]

Thales goes to Egypt and learned right triangle solutions, Pythagorean creates a solution that became the Pythagorean solution and their disciple creates an encyclical called Euclid's elements which today is still the second best selling nonfiction of all time, second only to the King James Bible.

Whilst most mathematicians would have heard of Thales and Pythagoras, they are minor figures in the history of mathematics. It is Euclid they would recognise as being the person who established an approach to mathematics which is still the corner stone of mathematics today.

Algebra was and is Euclidean geometry with a Z depth

Absolute and undiluted nonsense.

and Calculus is just plane geometry with a Z depth in motion. What you don't have a clue about is that actual science is cumulative.

Whilst every mathematician is very familiar with differential and integral calculus, I very much doubt that any of them have sat down and tried to write out a one line definition of calculus. What I am quite sure of is that they wouldn't recognise yours as bearing any relation to reality.

Libnitz is famous only for his symbols and he corresponded with Newton begging for help in solving problems he never really ever figured out. On a bet Newton found a parabolic curve solution for predicting the course of a comet and Calculus was born.

Leibnitz is famous for discovering calculus at around the same time as Newton. Thereafter they spent the rest of their lives accusing one another of Plagiarism.

Newton was obsessed with alchemy and eschatology based on the geometry of the Temple design. He denied the Trinity

That is just about the only thing you managed to get right.

I think you know nothing about biology. I am sure you know nothing about mathematics.

A few days ago I mentioned that I had a book called "The Geometry of Spacetime" close by. Another book I own is a postgraduate level book called "Quantum Theory for Mathematicians." Does that give you any clue as to what my degree might be in?

 

[lesliedellow]

Science is a word that means knowledge, epistemology is the study of the theory of knowledge.

Quite right, but I am not sure how far you think etymology is going to get you.

Science in it's modern form is knowledge of natural phenomenon

No, it is a methodology for coming by that knowledge.

 

[lesliedellow]

Its quite interesting that not only do he get the science wrong. He dont understand the fundamentals either.

See how he wants to insert metaphysics into the science, how he misunderstands terms, philosophy, epistomology etc.

I am not sure whether he or Justatruthseeker is the outstanding example of the Dunning Kruger effect at its most complete development. The latter seems to have disappeared from the forum.

 

[mark kennedy]

I am not sure whether he or Justatruthseeker is the outstanding example of the Dunning Kruger effect at its most complete development. The latter seems to have disappeared from the forum.

You know what has remained 100% consistent has been dragging the discussion off topic and substituting fallacious logic.

Quite right, but I am not sure how far you think etymology is going to get you.

This is largely philosophical, if you can't define your terms it's pointless.

No, it is a methodology for coming by that knowledge.

That's simply not true, direct observation and demonstration are key features but it can't be limited to methodology.